Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of an extraordinary man who has dedicated his life to serving and bettering his community.

Mr. Lindsley Frenette started his public service career in 1953, when he began serving as Doyle Township Supervisor. For 13 years, he served in that capacity before he was elected Schoolcraft County Board Commissioner in 1966.

Not only has Mr. Frenette made his community a better place through 52 years of involvement with local government, but he has spent decades working to improve mental health in Michigan.

As a co-founder of the Schoolcraft County Community Mental Health program and its successor agency, the Hiawatha Community Mental Health Authority, he has helped to provide mental health services to many people who would otherwise not have had access to them. In addition to creating these agencies Mr. Frenette helped grow and sustain them, spending 33 years on the Schoolcraft County Mental Health Board.

Mr. Frenette also spent many years on the Legislative Committee for the Michigan Association of County Mental Health Boards. In that capacity he played a key role educating state and federal legislators about the importance of mental health. My own father spent a number of years serving alongside Mr. Frenette on the Mental Health Board and he had nothing but good things to say about Mr. Frenette and his dedication.

By all reports, Mr. Frenette is not only a devoted public servant, but a genuinely kind person who is concerned about the welfare of his fellow citizens.

Together he and his wife Guerda raised seven children and saw the arrival of many grandchildren.

On Friday, Lindsley Frenette will be honored by friends, family and colleagues for his 33 years of service as a Community Mental Health Board member. While he is not retiring, the people closest to him decided it was time to come together and pay tribute to Mr. Frenette.

Mr. Speaker, that recognition is truly deserved. I join Mr. Frenette's friends and family in wishing him and his family all the best, in saluting him for his years of service and in wishing him the best for his many future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I held four town hall meetings in my vast rural northern Michigan district. I put on over 700 miles as I traveled from small town to small town to meet with my constituents. The number one concern of my constituents was the extremely high price of gasoline.

My constituents can't afford to drive the distances necessary to go to and from work. My constituents know they cannot afford the $50 to fill their gas tank. My constituents know that my PUMP legislation, Prevent Unfair Manipulating of Prices, would end the speculation in the pricing of a barrel of oil. My constituents know the legislation would reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by $20 and would lower the cost of the gas at the pump by one-third.

We could do that today.

My constituents also know that President Bush and the rubber-stamp Republican-controlled Congress will not allow a vote on my legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let's lower gas prices today. Let's lower it by bringing forward the PUMP legislation for a vote in this House, and do the people's work instead of the oil companies' work.

Mr. Chairman, I thank both the subcommittee Chair and ranking member for taking care of this matter for me as I was trying to get here from a committee as we are dealing with high fuel prices, energy prices, gas prices. I just did not make it in time, but I appreciate the assistance of the ranking member and chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would add to the Congress's efforts to strengthen communications interoperability.

The SAFE Port Act creates a new Port Security Grant Program. These grants may be awarded for twelve different purposes, including purchasing equipment and creating threat information systems.

My amendment makes two simple improvements to the bill. The amendment requires that communications equipment authorized for purchase under the Grant Program is interoperable with local, state, and federal governments.

Second, my amendment would require that the ``mechanisms for sharing terrorism threat information'' funded under these grants are also interoperable with local, state, and federal agencies.

We know that the problem of interoperability has plagued this country for too long. The lack of interoperability contributed to the death of 121 firefighters on September 11th. It contributed to the chaos after Hurricane Katrina.

Our ports are vulnerable targets for attack. As we work to give our ports the tools they need to prevent and respond to attacks, we must ensure that port systems are interoperable with the federal, state, and local agencies that work everyday with these ports.

Adding an interoperable standard to the equipment and threat information systems authorized under these grants is consistent with efforts by the Administration and Congress.

An interoperable communications standard is already required under the Urban Area Securities Initiative, the State Homeland Security, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant Programs.

I fear without this amendment we may have every port in the United States purchasing equipment that does not communicate with local, state, and federal officials on the ground. What good does this do the next time there is a terrorist attack or natural disaster involving a U.S. port?

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to add an interoperable standard to the equipment and threat information systems authorized under these grants.

This is a good bill that would be made better with the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it seems almost everyone these days is rightfully outraged at the massive profits of oil and gas executives and companies. While they are raking in record profits, gas prices hit historic highs. That is, everyone except House Republicans.

It is not enough that Republicans supported provisions in the energy bill last year that provided oil companies with $20 billion in special interest gifts while neglecting to include any real initiatives that would lower gas prices, but House Republicans then repeatedly refused to support Democratic efforts to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate all price gouging at all points of the supply chain. And last week, House Republicans had the opportunity to roll back $5 billion in additional tax breaks for oil companies over the next 5 years but voted overwhelmingly to reject this Democratic proposal.

Are House Republicans that far out of touch? Don't they realize that companies with profits of $130 billion last year do not need tax breaks? Mr. Speaker, the cozy relationship House Republicans have with oil and gas executives is hurting everyday Americans who are struggling to pay record prices at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering legislation that would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and prosecute price gouging in gasoline. This bill, H.R. 5253, was introduced just yesterday.

For 8 months, Democrats have been calling for the Republican leadership to allow a vote on my price gouging legislation, the Federal Response to Energy Emergencies, the FREE Act.

129 Democrats have signed a discharge petition to request that my price gouging legislation be brought to the floor for a vote. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, after 8 months of Democrats demanding that the Republican leadership bring legislation to the floor to protect the American consumers from price gouging, the Republicans have finally proposed their own bill.

While I am pleased that we have finally convinced the Republicans to bring legislation on price gouging to the floor, it is the American people who should be the winners today.

This legislation is long overdue. In the past 8 months the Republicans have failed to act to address price gouging, gas prices have exceeded $3 a gallon. Crude oil prices have broken records. Americans have endured significant financial hardships, and oil companies have reaped record profits.

Let us be clear. Republicans claim to have passed a price gouging bill last October. However, that legislation was so toothless that it is being ignored by the Republicans in the other body.

During that debate, I offered the FREE Act amendment as a substitute. All but two Republicans voted against my legislation. While I am pleased that the Republican leadership has finally brought a gas bill to the floor, I will say that this new bill was immediately put on the suspension calendar without any hearings, without any meaningful debate.

Several of my colleagues may not appreciate the differences between the bill before us today and the Democratic legislation, the FREE Act. Although these differences should not delay price gouging legislation any longer than it already has been, it is my hope that the Republicans will be willing to address these issues of true price gouging as this piece of legislation moves forward.

Our bill, the FREE Act, would specifically set out guidelines for the FTC to use to define price gouging, including provisions that make unconscionable pricing, providing false pricing information, and market manipulation illegal, all of which is lacking in the bill before us today.

The FREE Act also contains a provision that would promote price transparency, providing consumers with the information to know that oil and gas prices are fair and reasonable, again a standard lacking in the legislation before us today.

The FREE Act would also apply to natural gas and propane. Neither natural gas nor propane are even mentioned in the bill before us today.

Had the Republican bill, H.R. 5253, the bill before us today, been considered even by any committee in this Congress, or even just allowed to be amended on the floor here today, we could make changes that would make this a better bill.

Nonetheless, Congress has a responsibility to pass a price gouging bill. I am pleased the Republicans have stopped stonewalling. Democrats will continue to put pressure on the Republican leadership until a real, true price gouging bill is enacted, to ensure that it contains the strongest provisions to protect the American consumer.

It has taken 8 months for Democrats to finally shame the Republican leadership into passing price gouging legislation. If the Republicans are serious about helping American people, several of my Democratic colleagues have proposals to help ease the pain at the pump. It is my hope that it will not take 8 months for the Republicans to consider these proposals as we continue to work on the issue of high gas prices.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins) who has been a real advocate on lowering some of these special tax privileges for the big oil and gas companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), an advocate of consumers before she got to Congress, and she continues in that present capacity today as a strong advocate for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and has been advocating to try to get energy prices under control from refinery to gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is always down here every day advocating for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, so let me say a few words, and then will yield back.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are quite fed up with the price gouging that is going on at the gasoline pump. They know gouging when they see it, and they are being gouged. The Federal Government has the responsibility to protect consumers from price gouging.

Congress needs to pass legislation to allow the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute price gouging. While the bill before us is not perfect, I am pleased that the Republicans have finally realized that price gouging is a serious issue and it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Our constituents are looking to Congress for relief. It is our duty to approve legislation that would provide relief to protect Americans from the increased financial hardship from gasoline price gouging rates that is currently taking place.

Mr. Speaker, just as Republicans have finally joined with us Democrats in addressing price gouging, I challenge the Republicans, I challenge the chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee to take up other proposals we have, Mr. Markey's proposal, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to reduce the royalties. Oil companies get to drill on Federal lands; they do not have to pay any royalties. With record profits, they should be paying increased royalties to the American people. Or Mr. Higgins who spoke earlier today about his piece of legislation that takes away the tax break from the oil companies that have record profits last year of $113 billion, or in its first quarter of this year, it is approximately $20 billion, in the first quarter, in the first 90 days, $20 billion in profits. Why do they need tax breaks? Even the President said, as we were debating the Energy Policy Act of 2005 last year, that when oil is over $40 a barrel, there is no need for tax breaks. But yet we continue to give tax breaks to the oil companies. So there are other proposals. Or even the proposal I have before this committee that Mr. Kucinich spoke of, the Pump Act, to prevent unfair manipulating of prices. We know that if this Congress were to act, we could immediately bring down the price of a barrel of oil by $20 if we take the speculation, the fear and greed out of the oil futures market.

Mr. Speaker, of the billions of dollars of oil that is traded in futures market, 75 percent is not regulated. A mere 25 percent is regulated by NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange. The other 75 percent is unregulated. Therefore, they use fear; they use speculation to drive up that price.

So we have legislation that would actually reduce that, and let all those who trade in the futures market when we deal with oil to bring their transactions, to bring some transparency and bring it before the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to reduce that price of oil by $20 per barrel.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation. It is an initial start. We can improve on it. And as this process goes through, even though we were denied hearings, even an opportunity to amend this legislation; in fact, most Members have never seen it before. It was only introduced yesterday. We would hope that as this bill moves through the entire legislative process, that the other body would at least include all energy products, like natural gas which is not included in this bill, propane which is not included in this bill. What about the market manipulation, predatory pricing, regional price differences, all the things that we know happen in this country but yet we do not address in this bill? Like I said, it is an initial good start. We are glad to see the Republican leadership finally acknowledge there is price gouging, but rest assured, the Democrats will continue to come up with bold new ideas on how to get our hands on this energy crisis we are dealing with and the skyrocketing high gasoline prices. The American people are fed up. They have a right to be. This is a good first start. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

The gentlewoman is wrong on our legislation. My legislation, the FREE Act, applies to everything. It was your legislation that only dealt with national emergencies.

If we had hearings and witnesses, we could bring out the differences between the bills, but since we have been denied it, I have to use this tactic to get the record straight on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am concerned that the Republicans are attempting to move legislation that would significantly alter Federal law regarding the refinery permitting process without a committee hearing, without a markup, without even allowing the bill to be amended on the floor.

This bill is a rerun of the Gasoline for America's Security (GAS) Act, which was only approved by the House by a vote of 212 to 210 after the Republican Leadership held the vote open for 45 minutes, twisted arms. That GAS Refinery bill was a bad bill then, and now this bill before us is even worse.

By pushing refinery legislation through the House without any hearings, debate, or amendments, we are doing the American public a disservice.

While the proponents of this legislation contend that oil companies are unable to improve their refinery capacity because of excessive regulation, the truth is, oil companies have intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up gas prices.

I have here internal memos from Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco, specifically advocating that these companies limit their refining capacity to drive up prices.

From September 2004 to September 2005, refineries profits increased by 255 percent.

During the first quarter of 2006, Valero Energy Corporation, the largest refiner in the United States, reported profits 60 percent higher than last year.

Obviously, complying with Federal regulations does not present these companies with a significant financial hardship.

I encourage my Republican colleagues to address real legislation that can help the American consumer at the pump, rather than legislation that provides additional hand-outs and free-rides for their friends in the oil industry.

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 5254.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Larson motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4297. The motion to instruct conferees is to adapt the three Senate provisions affecting large integrated oil companies and would raise over $5 billion in additional revenue over 10 years.

Basically, what the Larson motion is doing is saying the same thing the President has said, once oil gets over $40 a barrel. Right now it is at $73 a barrel; why do we have to continue to give oil companies, big gas companies more tax breaks?

Look at these record profits. 2005: this is just ExxonMobil. It was like $36 billion, the most ever by a U.S. company. The whole industry in the last year was over $110 billion. But yet the policy of this country is, give them more tax breaks.

We have Mr. Higgins from New York who has the bill to say, take away the tax breaks. Take away those subsidies. If you are making this kind of money, why do you have to gouge us again? It is bad enough you gouge us at the pump. Now you are going to gouge us on April 15 and every day we pay taxes, and you are not paying any, with those record profits.

Or take Mr. Markey's legislation. You know, when they drill for oil and gas on Federal lands, you are supposed to pay a royalty. But they get suspended. They can't even pay a reasonable royalty to the American people for drilling on the lands you properly own. Why can't we have the Markey bill before this House? Why can't we have the Higgins bill before this House? Because we will cut into these record profits, that is why. Because the American people are with the Democrats on the issue in support of the Larson motion to take away these tax subsidies for the richest companies in the world.

Or how about the bill that we have been talking about for the last couple of weeks now, which is the PUMP Act that we have introduced, which is, prevent unfair manipulating of prices. Look, these old futures, as these prices go up, how do they get up there? How did we go from $40 a barrel to $73 or $75 a barrel? Through speculation, through greed and through fear.

So we start speculating on the price of oil, add a little fear, like we have lately. That is called Iran because they might suspend oil supplies, so that is going to have to bring it up, and then we can get more profit out of it.

Underneath the PUMP Act, what we are saying is, and currently, under current situation, only 25 percent of the oil futures are traded under NYNEX, the New York Mercantile Exchange. That means 75 percent are traded off-market. OTC they call them, over-the-counter.

All the experts tell us if we would only regulate the trading of oil futures through the Commodity Future Trade Commission, we could cut the price of a barrel of oil by $20. That would be one-third off at the pump. That would be like 90 cents off a gallon of gas if we could just regulate it.

If it is good enough for 25 percent of the oil traders to be regulated under the Commodities Future Trade Commission, why can't we do all of them? Just a fair question.

That is our legislation. Democrats came up with that one. Again, we can't bring it to the floor. Look, price gouging, that is what we have been getting right here. And here today we passed the so-called price gouging bill, the Wilson bill. I even voted for it, as weak a bill it was on price gouging. And it is at least a start. The Republicans acknowledge that there is gouging going on, so at least they brought a bill today; that was a start. But we want to improve it.

Why do we have to improve the Wilson price gouging bill that was passed by the House today? Just take a look at it. If you are going to start getting at the cost of energy, you have to start from the ground all the way to the gas pump. We know that, during September 2004 to September 2005, the cost of refining a gallon of gasoline went up 255 percent. That is price gouging. Of course, the Wilson legislation doesn't take that into consideration.

The Wilson legislation, the so-called price gouging legislation, doesn't consider natural gas, doesn't consider propane.

See what happens here with the Republican Party and the special interests; only special interests are given freeness. We don't tax oil companies. We don't tax gas companies. We don't include all types of energy in price gouging, even if it does go up 255 percent in 1 year. That is not price gouging. Let's give them a break.

Look, people are tired of being gouged at the pump or when they heat their homes. I have been for 8 months trying to bring up a reasonable piece of legislation on price gouging. It takes in all forms of energy from the ground to the pump.

We had the PUMP legislation, which will actually cut $20 off a barrel of oil. Why can't we do that? Why can't we take away the tax subsidies? Why can't they pay a royalty when they drill on Federal lands? Why are we protecting these record profits that you see right here? I think the American people know.

So I have been on this for the last 8 months. I am on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I have written to the chairman to have a hearing on my bill, because this winter, the Escanaba Senior Center got their bill. $7,000; next month it was over $13,000. Their energy assistance, LIHEAP, Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, only gives $6,000 a year. They used it all up in 1 month.

And after they get done gouging us at the gas pump, they will be gouging us this winter as we heat our homes. Therefore, let's use common sense. Let's give something back to the American people who are being gouged at the pump, at the thermostat and every day by these oil and gas companies.

Pass the Larson motion. It is the least we can do to try to bring some sanity back to this industry which is totally out of control and being protected by the Republican majority.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have been calling for hearings on gas price gouging for over 8 months. For 8 months I have been asking for consideration of my legislation, the Federal Response to Energy Emergencies Act, which is designated to crack down on gas price gouging. For 8 months, Republicans in Congress have stone walled. When Republicans finally started to feel the political heat, they put forth shallow imitations of Democratic ideas and returned to their old standby, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The simple fact is this: as gas prices climb, the majority party has been shamed into doing something, but they still are out of ideas. Our legislation, the Democratic legislation, the FREE Act, the Federal Response to Energy Emergencies, would instruct the Federal Trade Commission to develop a legal definition of gas price gouging, predatory pricing and market manipulation. Most people are shocked to find that there is no Federal law against gas price gouging. Therefore, the Federal Trade Commission has never brought a case to court for gas price gouging. Let me repeat that. Never in the history of the Federal Trade Commission has it brought a case of price gouging to court. Why is this? Because there is no definition of price gouging.

Well, even if the President and congressional Republicans don't know how to define price gouging, consumers know it when they see it. Gas costs 70 cents more a gallon right now than it did at the same time last year. Profits for refineries are up 255 percent between September 2004 and September 2005. Last week, Valero, the Nation's largest refinery company, posted a 60 percent increase in profit in the first quarter alone. That's gouging. And while it happens, unfortunately the majority party turns a blind eye.

In contrast, 125 House Democrats have signed a discharge petition. A discharge petition removes our legislation from the committee of jurisdiction and brings it to the floor for a vote. More and more Members each day are signing their name to the discharge petition. These Members are tired of the Republicans' stonewalling. We want action on a real price gouging bill with teeth, not a watered-down imitation.

Just as we need to address gouging, Congress should also take a look at the way oil futures are bought and sold. Seventy-five percent of the multibillion-dollar oil futures industry is completely unregulated, without transparency or oversight by the Federal Government or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is Enron all over again. Without Federal oversight, there is no way to ensure that speculators are not manipulating the market to drive up the price of oil.

Last week, I introduced the PUMP Act, or the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices Act. This bill would require all traders to play by the same rules, ending the speculation, fear and greed that drives today's oil prices. It has been estimated that by stopping this speculative trading, we could reduce the price of a barrel of oil by as much as $20 per barrel, providing consumers with immediate relief at the gas pump.

These are the kind of ideas that Democrats are promoting to provide consumers with immediate relief. But, instead, we get the same thing from the majority party: drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and provide big tax breaks to big oil. You don't drill your way to energy independence. Tax breaks for the big oil companies don't result in lower gas prices.

Today's USA Today, the Money section, has an article, States Find It Tough to Prove Gas Prices Illegal. In California, the Attorney General says that in 2006 in the first 4 months of this year, prices have gone up 14 percent, but the difference between what oil companies pay for crude oil and the price at the pump is up 130 percent. If that's not price gouging, I don't know what is. In Arizona, they showed that the profit margins realized by every segment of the oil industry were two or three times greater than normal. Is that price gouging? I think it is. But as Arizona says, the State has no law making price gouging illegal, underscoring, the report says, the need for Federal price gouging legislation.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that Speaker Hastert would allow us to bring up the FREE Act so we could have a free and full debate on price gouging in this Congress.

Look at this next article: Fuel Costs Ease But Could Climb Higher. Why? Money is flowing into direct or indirect purchases of oil futures as an inflation hedge. That flow sends futures higher, fueling more inflation, and then fueling more money into futures positions as an inflation hedge. That is price gouging. That is market manipulation. That is why we have the PUMP Act.

If we would pass the PUMP Act, bring it to the floor for debate, get it out of committee and put it before the House here, we could lower the price of a barrel of oil by $20.

[From USA Today]

States Find It Tough To Prove Gas Prices Illegal

(By James R. Healey and Matt Krantz)

Arizona's comprehensive investigation into that state's

high fuel prices after Hurricane Katrina concludes that while

there was ``profiteering'' at all levels of the oil industry,

nothing illegal took place.

Washington's attorney general's office said in a report

last week that its more recent investigation of today's high

prices ``has not found any evidence so far of illegal

activity among gasoline retailers or producers in

Washington.''

Together, the two reports show that it is hard for

authorities to prove consumers are being ripped off even in

times of extraordinary price increases.

Attorneys general in at least nine states, responding to

outrage by their residents, are investigating whether current

high gasoline prices are a result of wrongdoing by the

petroleum industry. according to the National Association of

Attorneys General

Arizona's statewide average price is $3.022, still nearly

11 cents less than the record $3.131 shortly after Katrina,

according to travel club AM's daily survey.

Washington's average $3.011 Monday set a record for that

state.

The attorney general in California, where the statewide

average hit a record $3.251 a gallon Monday, says he will

subpoena documents from the state's 21 refineries, including

those operated by major oil companies ChevronTexaco,

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

The attorney general's office said state data for 2006 show

that crude oil prices have risen 14%, but the difference

between what oil companies pay for crude oil and prices at

the pump has soared 130%.

Gasoline is made from crude oil, which accounts for roughly

55% of the pump price for gasoline, the U.S. government says.

And Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, in a statement

about his investigation, said, ``Gas prices are influenced by

the basic laws of supply and demand.''

Energy-industry veterans wonder if such probes are

misleading.

California's own Energy Commission, for instance,

acknowledges in an explanation of fuel prices on its website:

``Rumors and charges of collusion among the oil companies

have been raised for decades with nothing ever proven.''

Charles Swanson, director of Ernst & Young's Energy Center,

says, ``Politicians can posture all they want, but there's

nothing they can do to help.''

Some states have made price-gouging cases. Florida sued

individual gas stations for overcharging after Katrina.

But Florida, unlike Arizona, has an anti-gouging law. It is

in effect only when a state of emergency is declared. Florida

was a hurricane target, making an emergency declaration

logical.

Arizona's report, unveiled last week, says, ``Profit

margins realized by every segment of the oil industry were

two or three times their normal margins.''

But the state has no law making that illegal, underscoring,

the report says, the need for a federal price-gouging law.

The Federal Trade Commission is expected to deliver a

report by May 22 that will say whether the agency found any

price manipulation after Katrina.

[From USA Today, May 2, 2006]

Fuel Costs Ease But Could Climb Higher

(By James R. Healey)

Gasoline prices have stopped their spring-loaded daily

leaps, but it's too soon to say the worst is over.

The numbers on the pump have declined slightly three

consecutive days, to a nationwide average $2.919 a gallon

Monday, according to travel club AAA. It's the first time

that's happened since late March. But the March respite

totaled just 0.8 of a cent over three days and turned out to

be only a hiccup that before prices zipped higher.

AAA warns that might happen again. ``A few days of slight

declines does not make a trend,'' spokesman Geoff Sundstrom

cautions. ``We may continue to see higher prices between now

and Memorial Day.''

That's the beginning of the warm-weather driving season,

when gasoline consumption rises as Americans take more

vacations and weekend trips.

A weekly report by the U.S. Energy Information

Administration showed a U.S. average Monday identical to

AAA's--$2.919--up a just 0.5 of a cent from a week ago.

That's a big slowdown after four weeks of prices jumping an

average 10.4 cents a gallon per week.

On one hand, it should be no surprise that prices are

easing. U.S. gasoline supplies are ample. U.S. demand is a

little soft. Refineries are mostly through with their routine

maintenance and are cranking out generous amounts of

gasoline.

But prices aren't down as far as they should be under those

circumstances, energy veterans say. That's partly because

petroleum products have become an investment instead of

traders' best guess about the value of crude oil, gasoline

and heating oil the next few months.

``Money is flowing into direct or indirect purchases of oil

futures as an inflation hedge. That flow sends futures

higher, fueling more inflation, and then fueling more money

into futures positions as an inflation hedge,'' says Tom

Kloza, senior analyst at the Oil Price Information Service.

Oil rose $1.82 to settle at $73.70 Monday.

Still, ``We can put to rest some of the hyperbole--$3.50

average for gasoline, or $4-plus,'' he says.

Keeping upward pressure on prices:

Hostility toward the U.S. in oil-producers Iran and

Venezuela implies shortages at any minute.

Indelible memories of disruptions caused by hurricanes in

the Gulf of Mexico last year keep petroleum traders jumpy

about supplies. That makes them willing to pay more for oil

and for the gasoline made from it.

``We're heading into the peak demand season and the

potenial for refinery outages'' from hurricanes, cautions

Thomas Bentz, senior energy analyst at BNP Paribas, a big

investment bank.

The U.S. Minerals Management Service in its latest report,

April 19, said that 22.3% of Gulf oil output still hadn't

restarted after hurricane damage last year. The MMS plans to

update that number Wednesday.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order.

Madam Speaker, today the Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, announced that he will be bringing an energy package to the floor as soon as next week. As a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I must express my concerns that this legislation has not been reviewed, had a hearing, or even been seen by members of the committee with the proper jurisdiction. In fact, the contents of this legislation are not available to be reviewed by the American people, let alone my colleagues who will be required to vote on the bill.

All that anyone knows about this bill that is supposed to be on the floor next week is a one-page press release the Speaker put out. Yet we will be forced to vote on this bill as soon as we get back next week. This sounds like the Vice President's secret energy task force. And what have we seen since then? The price of gas has almost doubled and the profits of the oil companies have almost tripled since those secret meetings in the White House that no one seems to know anything about. But we know gas prices continue to go up and nobody knows why.

The American people deserve real answers and real solutions to these high

gas prices. Consumers are currently paying an average of $2.91 per gallon for gasoline. Last summer it was $2.25. Why the almost 70-cent increase? This summer, as the real driving season begins, Americans are expected to pay even more at the pump than last summer.

But in the meantime, look at these profits. Look at ExxonMobil, one of the larger oil companies in this country. Look at their profits. You can take all of the net income of the oil companies, their profits in the last year was $113 billion in profits.

While the majority party has put out a one-page press release talking about things they would like to do, Democrats have real solutions that could be brought to the House floor today that would have an immediate effect and lower the price of gasoline for all Americans.

For example, there are currently no Federal laws against gas price- gouging. The only way the Federal Trade Commission can attempt to prosecute unfair pricing is by using the antitrust laws or the monopoly laws of this country. To date, in the entire history of the Federal Trade Commission, not one, not one case has ever been brought before the courts to prosecute for price gouging. Because the Federal Government does not have a clear definition or standard of what price gouging is, the FTC cannot do little more than make a study of the current gas price situation. Americans are tired of studies and want real answers.

Last September I introduced a bill to increase the Federal Government's ability to prosecute price gougers. My bill, the FREE Act, the Federal Response to Energy Emergencies, will provide the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice with the authority to investigate and prosecute those who engage in predatory pricing from oil companies all of the way down to distributors, with an emphasis on those who profit the most.

The FREE Act, our legislation that could be on the floor tomorrow, will also allow each State attorney general to go into Federal district court to prosecute unfair pricing practices.

When we talk about unfair price practices, we talk about everything in the chain and distribution and supply of oil and gasoline. Take a look at this here, from the time it comes out of the ground, refineries to distributors and retailers, taxes, all of the way to the consumer. We should be able to investigate every aspect of it. If you look at what the Republicans have been proposing, you only get to do an investigation when the President declares a national emergency and it is only for the distributors and retailers, not the refinery who has a 255 percent increase in the cost of refining a gallon of gasoline in a year, nor even the crude oil producers who went up 46 percent in the last year.

When we introduced our bill to increase the Federal Government's ability to prosecute price gougers, we included everybody. We want to make sure that the American people are protected from the time it comes out of the ground until you put it in your vehicle. Our legislation expands the Federal Trade Commission's authority to more aggressively pursue market manipulations such as geographic price settings or territorial restrictions put forth by the refineries.

Why has gas gone up? In the last 12 months, from September 2004 to September 2005, it has gone up 255 percent. Is that price gouging? We happen to think it is, but we need a clear definition. Right now there are 28 States with different standards as to price gouging. That is why it is so important to have a Federal standard.

Our bill also imposes tough civil penalties up to triple the damages on excess profits.

Madam Speaker, we are trying to fight high gas prices. Democrats stand ready, willing and able to do our job.

Madam Speaker, crude oil prices have exceeded previous records set after Hurricane Katrina, reaching over $75 a barrel. This summer, Americans are expected to pay significantly more at the pump than last summer. In the meantime, oil companies continue to rake in record profits.

During five town hall meetings I held in Michigan in the past 2 weeks, the price of gasoline was the most troubling for my constituents. There are currently no Federal laws against price gouging. The only way the Federal Trade Commission can even attempt to prosecute unfair pricing is through antitrust and antimonopoly laws. To date, the FTC has never brought a gas price gouging case to court.

Recently, President Bush ordered an investigation into gas prices. However, because the Federal Government does not have a clear definition of what price gouging is, the FTC can do little more than study the issues. But we have had enough studies. Last September, I introduced a bill to increase the Federal Government's ability to prosecute price gougers. My bill, the Federal Response to Energy Emergencies Act, FREE Act, will provide the FTC and the Department of Justice with the authority to investigate and to prosecute those who engage in predatory pricing, from oil companies down to distributors, with an emphasis on those who profit most.

The FREE Act will also allow State attorneys general to investigate unfair pricing practices. This includes the gouging of gasoline, home heating oil, and natural gas. The Federal Government has a responsibility to act responsibly and prevent price gouging, and I urge a vote on my legislation.

Madam Speaker, President Bush simply has no compassion for millions of seniors who are trying to determine which of the prescription drug plans is best for them. Forty days from now, seniors must choose a plan or face a Bush prescription drug tax for the rest of their lives.

Last month, a woman struggling to help her elderly mother pick a prescription drug plan asked the President to extend the enrollment deadline. President Bush refused, telling the woman that helping her mother was her responsibility. The President's answer shows that he is still listening to drug companies and not the American people.

Seniors, people with disabilities and their families, need more time before making a crucial health and financial decision. Democrats do not believe seniors should be penalized because they cannot understand this complicated drug plan. That is why Democrats are fighting to extend the enrollment period by 6 months.

As we check off another day on the calendar, House Republicans now have 40 more days to stand up and support America's seniors. It is time they joined the Democrats in fighting to ensure the prescription drug tax, pushed by this President, does not take effect on May 15.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we voted on the previous question on the rule for H.R 2829, the Office of National Drug Control Policy. At the time that the vote was called, I was in the Energy and Commerce Committee participating in a hearing regarding the Department of Energy Budget. In my rush to go from the hearing to the House floor and for more meetings, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' on the previous question rather than ``no'' as I had intended.

While I know that my vote would not have changed the outcome of the previous question vote, I feel strongly that the House should be allowed the opportunity to consider legislation that would block the Dubai port deal and strengthen the review process for future foreign port deals I would like the Record to reflect that I intended to vote ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Food Uniformity for Food Act, and the rule under which this bill is being considered. If passed, this bill will be a huge setback to consumer safety, public health, and America's war on terror.

This bill wipes out 200 food safety laws and puts our Nation's food supply squarely in the hands of the FDA. State laws that will be overturned include warnings regarding the risk of cancer, birth defects, reproductive health issues, and allergic reactions associated with sulfating agents in bulk foods. That is why 37 bipartisan State attorneys general and the Association of State Food and Drug Officials oppose this legislation.

The bill would also prevent States from passing laws regarding the safety of packaged meat.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to these pictures. Which meat do you think is older, the red meat on the top or the brown on the bottom? Both are the same age. Both have been sitting in a refrigerator side by side for 5 months.

The meat on the top has been packaged with carbon monoxide, which causes the meat to look red and fresh long into the future. The meat on the bottom has not. It is brown and slimy. Like I said, the meat on the top is 5 months old and looks as good as new, but it is not. If consumed, you could become severely ill from a food-borne pathogen like e. coli and possibly die.

The FDA, without any independent studies, states it has ``no objection'' to allowing meat to be packaged in carbon monoxide. The FDA merely reviewed the meat industry carbon monoxide proposal. Review is not the same as independent research and studies.

By allowing the injection of carbon monoxide in meat and seafood packaging, the meat industry stands to gain $1 billion a year because meat, as it turns brown, consumers reject it.

Numerous studies from 1972 through 2003 cite that color is the most important factor that consumers rely on to determine freshness in whether or not to buy the meat. The whole purpose behind this carbon monoxide package is to extend the shelf life of meat and seafood and to deceive the consumer into thinking it is fresh and safe.

Today States may pass their own laws to label meat that has been packaged with carbon monoxide, but these laws will be overturned if H.R. 4167 becomes law. My commonsense amendment would have allowed States to

label carbon monoxide-packaged meat so consumers would know that their meat may not be as fresh as it looks. Unfortunately, my amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee. This is what consumers have to work with now. This will be the standard if H.R. 4167 passes.

Just as the FDA caved in to the meat industry in approving this practice, the majority has caved in to the meat industry in blocking a vote on my amendment. The House deserves a full and open and fair debate on this issue and on my amendment.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4167.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as to meat and fish, as the gentleman knows, the FDA just issued their rule not even 3 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago, and they did it without any independent studies. They just said they just reviewed it, no study, no research, no nothing.

So what you may use lemon juice on apples is a far cry different than carbon monoxide on meat and seafood, and especially tuna, which most people consume in a raw state.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer this motion to recommit. My motion protects the rights of States to notify consumers about carbon monoxide treated meat, poultry and fish.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to these pictures. Which meat do you think is older? The red meat on top, or the brown meat on the bottom?

Both are the same age. Both have been sitting in a refrigerator, side by side, for 5 months.

Mr. Speaker, the meat on the top has been packaged in carbon monoxide which causes the meat to look red and fresh long into the future. The meat on the bottom has not, and it is brown and slimy. Like I said, the meat on the top is 5 months old and looks as good as new, but it is not. If you consume it, you could become severely ill from a food-borne pathogen like E. coli, and possibly die.

Packing meat in carbon monoxide without labeling is consumer deception at best; and at worse, it could become a major health threat. The FDA, without looking at any independent studies, has determined it has no objection to allowing meat to be packaged in carbon monoxide. The FDA merely reviewed the meat industry's carbon monoxide proposal. By allowing the injection of carbon monoxide in meat

and seafood packaging, the meat industry stands to gain $1 billion a year because as meat begins to turn brown, consumers reject it.

Color is the most important factor the public uses to determine what meat they buy, according to studies dating back to 1972. Yet the FDA, in making its decision, only looked at information provided to it by the meat industry.

It did not do its own independent research or studies. It did not solicit any public comments. Currently States may pass their own laws to notify consumers that their meat may be packaged with carbon monoxide and may not be as fresh as it appears. But those laws will about be overturned if this bill becomes law.

My motion to recommit is simple. It allows States to act regarding consumer notification of carbon monoxide-treated meat, poultry and fish. Is this really the standard we want for our country for the public health and safety of food, which have been primarily left to the States? We should not tie the hands of the States who want to protect the health of their citizens from this deceptive practice.

The National Farmers Union, Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest all agree on the State's right to label this food should be protected.

One more prop. Take a look at this Coke can. Differing States have different deposit amounts on it. States like Michigan has 10 cents; States like Massachusetts, Maine, Hawaii, 5 cents.

According to this rule, there is no uniformity, every State does it a little differently. It will still exist, but underneath the Rogers amendment, we can't protect our meat from carbon monoxide. Why do we have to have one standard here, but when it comes to returning the deposit, we would have standards and we don't worry about uniformity? Let's pass the motion to recommit.

I yield 1 minute to the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. If passed, this bill will be a huge setback to consumer safety, public health and America's war on terror. This bill wipes out over 80 State food safety laws and puts our Nation's food safety standards squarely in the hands of the FDA.

State laws that will be overturned include warnings as to the risk of cancer, birth defects, reproductive health issues and allergic reactions associated with sulfiting agents in bulk food. That is why 37 State attorney generals, Democrats and Republicans, oppose this bill. A bipartisan Association of Food and Drug officials also have strong concerns about the legislation.

Let me quote from them. It says, this bill, H.R. 4167, ``undermines our Nation's whole biosurveillance system by preempting and invalidating many of the State and local food safety laws and regulations that provide necessary authority for State and local agencies to operate food safety and security programs. The pre-9/11 concept embodied in this bill is very much out of line with the current threats that confront our food safety and security system.''

The Association of Food and Drug Officials also said that H.R. 4167 will severely hamper the FDA's ability to detect and respond to acts of terrorism. Again, quoting from this report, it says our current food safety and security system will be significantly disrupted, and our inability to track suspected acts of intentional alteration will be exploited by those who seek to do our Nation harm.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to these two pictures. Which meat do you think is older, the red meat on top or the brown meat on the bottom? It is not really a trick question, but both of these packages of meat were packaged at the same time. Both have been sitting in a refrigerator side by side for 5 months. The meat on the top has been packaged with carbon monoxide which causes the meat to look fresh and red long into the future. The meat on the bottom has not been treated with carbon monoxide. It is brown and it is slimy.

Like I said, the meat on the top is 5 months old and looks as good as new, but it is not. If consumed, you could become severely ill from a food-borne pathogen like E. coli and possibly die from the red meat here on the top.

The FDA, without any independent study, has no objection to allowing meat to be packaged in carbon monoxide. The FDA merely reviewed the meat industry's carbon monoxide proposal. Review is not the same as independent research. By allowing the injection of carbon monoxide in meat and seafood packaging, the meat industry stands to gain $1 billion per year because meat begins to turn brown. When it does, consumers reject it.

Consumers rely on color to determine freshness. Numerous studies from 1972 to 2003 cite color as the most important factors consumers use to determine what meat to buy. The whole purpose behind this carbon monoxide packaging is to extend the shelf life of meat and seafood and to deceive the consumer into thinking the product is fresh. Today, States may pass their own laws and put labels on meat that has been packaged with carbon monoxide, but those laws will be overturned if this bill, H.R. 4167, becomes law.

I will be offering an amendment which allows States to label carbon monoxide packaging of meat, so consumers will know the meat may not look as fresh as it may appear.

Is this really the standard we want for our country? Do we offer low carbon monoxide in meat packaging to make it look fresher, to stay on the shelf longer, and expose our country and consumers to the health and risk of eating contaminated meat and seafood? Public health and safety for food primarily have been the responsibility of States. We should not tie the hands of States who want to protect the health of their citizens. I urge my colleagues to support the Stupak carbon monoxide labeling amendment and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4167.